Biological Monitoring Report - NTEPA€¦ · A total of 32 taxa were identified from the three...

Appendix JAquatic Ecology Report

J A

quatic Ecology Report

1.

w w w . e c o z . c o m . a u

Aquatic Ecology Report:

Noonamah Ridge Estate

Prepared for: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd

Prepared by: EcOz Environmental Consultants

2015

Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd ii

Doc Title: Aquatic Ecology Report: Noonamah Ridge Estate

This page has been intentionally left blank

Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd iii


Document Control Record

Document Code: EZ14406-C0301-SWS-R-0002

Catalogue Number: 56545

Project Manager: Glen Ewers

Author(s): Mike Welch

Approved by: Glen Ewers

Approval date: 15 June 2015

DOCUMENT HISTORY

Version Issue Date Brief Description Reviewer/Approver

1.A 11 Jun 2015 Report preparation by author -

1.B-C 11 Jun 2015 EcOz review G. Ewers

1.0 15 Jun 2015 -

Recipients are responsible for eliminating all superseded documents in their possession.

EcOz Pty Ltd.

ABN: 81 143 989 039

Winlow House, 3rd Floor

75 Woods Street

DARWIN NT 0800

GPO Box 381, Darwin NT 0800

Telephone: +61 8 8981 1100

Facsimile: +61 8 8981 1102

Email: [email protected]

Internet: www.ecoz.com.au

RELIANCE, USES and LIMITATIONS

This report is copyright and is to be used only for its intended purpose by the intended recipient, and is not to be copied or used in any

other way. The report may be relied upon for its intended purpose within the limits of the following disclaimer.

This study, report and analyses have been based on the information available to EcOz Environmental Consultants at the time of

preparation. EcOz Environmental Consultants accepts responsibility for the report and its conclusions to the extent that the information

was sufficient and accurate at the time of preparation. EcOz Environmental Consultants does not take responsibility for errors and

omissions due to incorrect information or information not available to EcOz Environmental Consultants at the time of preparation of the

study, report or analyses.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.ecoz.com.au/

glen.ewers

Typewritten Text

glen.ewers

Typewritten Text

glen.ewers

Typewritten Text

glen.ewers

Typewritten Text

glen.ewers

Typewritten Text

Report complete and ready for inclusion in EIS

Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd iv


This page has been intentionally left blank

Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd v


Executive Summary

Macroinvertebrate biological monitoring was undertaken to provide a baseline assessment of aquatic health,

in the vicinity of the proposed Noonamah Ridges Estate (project area). The project area is located

predominantly within the upper reaches of the Elizabeth River catchment, which flows into Darwin Harbour.

The Elizabeth River is an intermittent system that flows during the wet season and usually ceases to flow by

June-July each year, with regular permanent pools. The tributaries of Elizabeth River that flow from the

project area are ephemeral, flowing only during the wet season and ceasing to flow early in the dry season

(i.e. March/April), either drying completely or contracting to occasional pools during the dry season.

Sampling of macroinvertebrates was undertaken at three sites at the boundary of the project area and

downstream in April 2015, in accordance with established AUSRIVAS macroinvertebrate monitoring

protocols. Concurrent descriptions of environmental variables (e.g. stream morphology, habitats) and water

quality samples were also collected. The downstream sampling site on the Elizabeth River was in the same

location monitored previously over a ten year period by the NT Government, so this monitoring also provides

an update on the aquatic health of the wider Elizabeth River system.

A total of 32 taxa were identified from the three survey sites, with similar taxonomic richness between survey

sites. Macroinvertebrate data were analysed using the Darwin-Daly genus-level AUSRIVAS model, with the

two sites at the boundary of the project area having lower than expected taxonomic richness and the

downstream Elizabeth River site being similar to reference condition (as determined in previous NT

Government monitoring).

As the water quality in streams draining the project area is considered very good and there is no current

development within their respective catchments, the relatively poor macroinvertebrate community health

could possibly be attributed to relatively poor habitat availability for macroinvertebrate colonisation and/or

hydrological conditions associated with their location high in the catchment (i.e. second order streams).

Sampled habitats were generally consistent between sites and due to the relatively flashy nature of high

flows in this system, stream banks were often scoured with bare substrates and had limited availability of

what would be considered ideal macroinvertebrate habitat (e.g. organic matter, trailing root materials, etc.).

Another potential explanation is that primary productivity is often reported to increase with increasing stream

order, moving down a catchment.

Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd vi


Table of Contents

1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Background ..........................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Catchment description .........................................................................................................................1

2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................4

2.1 Survey design, locations and timing.....................................................................................................4

2.2 Field sampling techniques ....................................................................................................................4

2.3 Sample sorting and identification .........................................................................................................5

2.4 Data analysis ........................................................................................................................................5

3 Results and Discussion ...............................................................................................................................6

3.1 Habitat descriptions ..............................................................................................................................6

3.2 Water quality ........................................................................................................................................6

3.3 Macroinvertebrates...............................................................................................................................8

4 Acronyms and References ....................................................................................................................... 10

4.1 Acronyms .......................................................................................................................................... 10

4.2 References ........................................................................................................................................ 10

Tables

Table 1-1. Details of NT Government macroinvertebrate monitoring in Elizabeth River catchment .................2 Table 1-2. Details of AUSRIVAS scores ............................................................................................................2 Table 3-1. Stream habitat data ..........................................................................................................................6 Table 3-2. Water quality data ............................................................................................................................7 Table 3-3. Macroinvertebrate results .................................................................................................................8 Table 3-4. Output from the Darwin-Daly family-level AUSRIVAS model ..........................................................9

Figures

Figure 1-1. Map showing location of study catchment and macroinvertebrate monitoring sites.......................3

Appendices

Appendix A – Site Photographs

Acknowledgements

Peter Dostine (NT Dept. of Land and Resource Management) provided details of previous macroinvertebrate

monitoring in the Elizabeth River catchment and kindly provided advice on data analysis using the Darwin-

Daly AUSRIVAS model.

Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd 1


1 Introduction

1.1 Background

Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd (Intrapac), propose to develop a residential subdivision, Noonamah Ridge Estate,

at Noonamah, located approximately 36 km south-east of Darwin – see Figure 1-1. The proposed

development is located between the Stuart and Arnhem Highways, and the project area covers

approximately 2,800 hectares.

A Notice of Intent was submitted to the Northern Territory Environmental Protection Authority (NTEPA) on 22

December 2013 and it was determined that the proposed development required an Environmental Impact

Statement. One of the Terms of Reference for the EIS requires:

“a description of the environmental values of the surface waterways on-site and regionally. The

description should be based on an accepted method for quantifying river health that is able to (be)

compared and repeated in future (i.e. AUSRIVAS)”.

The ‘AUSRIVAS’ (Australian River Assessment Scheme) rapid biological assessment system has been

widely used to assess the biological health of Australian rivers for many years. To achieve this in the NT, a

standardised sampling and assessment protocol has been developed for the sampling of freshwater

macroinvertebrate communities (Lamche 2007).

This report summarises the macroinvertebrate biological monitoring undertaken to provide a baseline

assessment of aquatic health, both on the site and downstream. It is intended that this report be read in

conjunction with the Surface Water Quality Monitoring Report (EcOz 2015) prepared for the EIS.

1.2 Catchment description

1.2.1 Hydrology

The project area falls within two surface water catchments, the majority of which (63 %) is in the upper

Elizabeth River catchment, a major tributary of the Darwin Harbour catchment. A relatively small portion of

the eastern section of the project area drains into the Adelaide River catchment (Figure 1-1).

The Elizabeth River is an intermittent system that flows during the wet season and usually ceases to flow by

June – July each year, with regular permanent pools. The tributaries of Elizabeth River that flow from the

project area are ephemeral, flowing only during the wet season and ceasing to flow early in the dry season

(i.e. March/April), either drying completely or contracting to occasional pools during the dry season.

1.2.2 Previous biological monitoring

Monitoring of macroinvertebrates in the Elizabeth River catchment was previously undertaken regularly as

part of the NT Government’s (NTG) monitoring of the Darwin Harbour Catchment. The NTG monitored four

sites between 2001 and 2010, with details provided in Table 1-1 and locations shown in Figure 1-1.

Aquatic health according to the AUSRIVAS macroinvertebrate monitoring methodology has generally been

Class A (i.e. similar to reference) at most NTG monitoring sites, with the lower freshwater Elizabeth River site

(DW40) being Class B (i.e. significantly impaired) during some years (Table 1-1). This indicates that in at

least some years, there may be decreased aquatic health as a result of disturbance associated with the

existing rural and/or agricultural development within the Elizabeth River catchment.



Table 1-1. Details of NT Government macroinvertebrate monitoring in Elizabeth River catchment

Site Years sampled and AUSRIVAS model score*

2001 2002 2003 2004 2007 2009 2010

DW39 A A A - - B A

DW40 A B A B B A A

DW44 - A A - - A B

DW71 - - - - - A A

* See below for details of scoring categories

Table 1-2. Details of AUSRIVAS scores

Band Family level model OE50

Description O/E Taxa Interpretations

X > 1.18 More biologically diverse than reference

More families found than expected.

Potential biodiversity "hot-spot" or mild organic enrichment.

Continuous irrigation flow in a normally intermittent stream.

A 0.82 – 1.18 Similar to reference Expected number of families within the range found at 80% of the reference sites.

B 0.45 – 0.81 Significantly impaired Potential impact either on water and/or habitat quality resulting in a loss of families.

C 0.07 – 0.44 Severely impaired

Many fewer families than expected.

Loss of families from substantial impairment of expected biota caused by water and/or habitat quality.

D < 0.07 Extremely Impaired

Few of the expected families and only the hardy, pollution tolerant families remain.

Severe impairment.

Source: Lamche (2007)

!.

!. !.

!.

!.

!.

!.

DW44

DW71DW39

DW40

NRSW04

NRSW06

NRSW02

726000 728000 730000 732000 734000 73600085

9400

0

8594

000

8596

000

8596

000

8598

000

8598

000

8600

000

8600

000

8602

000

8602

000

8604

000

8604

000

8606

000

8606

000

Path: Z:\01 EcOz_Documents\04 EcOz Vantage GIS\EZ14400 - Noonamah Ridge Estates EIS\01 Project Files\Water Monitoring and SW\Macroinvertebrate sampling locations.mxd

0 1 20.5KilometresO

MAP INFORMATIONName: Macroinvertebrate sampling locationsProjection: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 52Date Saved: 2/09/2015Client: Intrapac Projects Pty LtdAuthor: Helen Dwyer (reviewed by Mike Welch)DATA SOURCEMacro sites: NTG, EcOzProject area: IntrapacWaterways: EcOz, NTG

Figure 1-1. Map showing location of study catchment and macroinvertebrate monitoring sites

Macroinvertebrate sampling sites!. EcOz!. NT Government

Watercourses and drainage linesFirst orderSecond orderThird order

Project area boundaryPrincipal roadDual Carriageway

ELIZABETH RIVER

Stuart Highway

Goode Road

Alverly Road



2 Methodology

2.1 Survey design, locations and timing

Three monitoring sites were sampled, including two sites on Elizabeth River tributaries immediately

downstream of the project area boundary, and one site that receives drainage from both the western portion

of the project area (i.e. two tributaries sampled and one other) and other tributaries that have varying levels

of development. Locations of the sampling sites are shown in Figure 1-1.

Sampling was undertaken on 30 April 2015, which coincided with the recessional flow period, as specified in

the NT AUSRIVAS User Manual (Lamche 2007). Relatively low rainfall during the 2014/2015 wet season

resulted in many sites quickly receding in flow and at the time of sampling, the two tributaries draining the

site (i.e. NRSW02 and NRSW04) were flowing at a rate of approximately 10 L/s and the downstream site

(NRSW06) was flowing around 50 – 100 L/s (estimated visually).

2.2 Field sampling techniques

2.2.1 Macroinvertebrates

Macroinvertebrate sampling was undertaken in accordance with the NT AUSRIVAS User Manual (Lamche

2007). This is a two-person operation, which involves the disturbance of a 5 – 10 m section of stream bank

‘edge’ habitat with a three-pronged rake by the first person, followed by the second person who passes a

500 µm mesh net (D-shaped opening with 35 cm diameter) through the disturbed water in a sweeping

motion.

Following sampling, the net contents are emptied into a bucket of water and the net washed thoroughly, to

remove any remaining debris and macroinvertebrates. The organic fraction is separated from the inorganic

sediments by stirring the bucket contents and slowly pouring the suspended mixture from the bucket into

nested coarse (i.e. 10 mm) and fine (i.e. 500 µm) sieves. The coarse fraction is discarded following an

inspection of the sieve contents to check for any invertebrates. The contents of the fine sieve is washed into

a 1000 ml plastic wide mouth jar and preserved in the field using ethanol to a concentration of 70 %. The

samples are then sorted and identified in the laboratory, as detailed in Section 2.3 below.

2.2.2 Habitat descriptions

In addition to photographs taken at each site, information on habitats sampled and surrounding in-stream

and riparian areas were recorded, including the following:

Stream width (i.e. at water level)

Bank-full widths and depths (i.e. levy banks)

Water depth at sample location

Stream discharge (estimated visually)

Flow at sample location (estimated visually)

Dominant substrates at sample location

Riparian canopy cover (estimated visually)

Riparian disturbance (i.e. weeds, feral animals, fire).



2.2.3 Water quality

Field parameters (pH, dissolved oxygen [DO], electrical conductivity [EC], turbidity, temperature, total

dissolved solids [TDS], and salinity) were measured using hand-held field instruments, calibrated on the day

of sampling.

Samples for laboratory analysis were collected using sterile laboratory-supplied sample bottles and

submitted to a NATA-accredited laboratory for analysis. Analytes included total suspended solids, dissolved

major cations and anions (hydroxide, carbonate, bicarbonate and total alkalinity, sulfate, chlorine, total

hardness, Ca, Mg, Na, K), dissolved metals (Al, As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn, Fe) and nutrients (NH4, N02, N03,

TKN, TN, TP, total reactive phosphorus).

2.3 Sample sorting and identification

Samples were sub-sampled so that at a minimum of 200 animals or 10 % of the sample is examined using a

sub-sampler as described by Marchant (1989). Where samples were shown to have low abundances the

sorting time was limited to a maximum of four hours. At the completion of the sub-sampling, a general scan

of the remaining sample was completed and any additional species not initially collected were added to the

taxa list. The abundances of the taxa collected from the sub-sample were corrected depending upon the

percentage of the subsample that was examined.

Taxonomic resolution followed AUSRIVAS protocols (Lloyd and Cook 2002). The majority of taxa were

identified to family level, with some groups identified to class or order (e.g. Mites and worms). Any damaged

or immature taxa were identified to the lowest level possible. As per the protocol, micro-crustacea such as

Cladocerans, Copeopds and Ostracods were not included in the data analysis.

2.4 Data analysis

Comparisons of abundance and species richness were made between sites, including dominant taxa and

where relevant, how this could be influenced by habitat and/or water quality variables observed at a given

site.

Macroinvertebrate data were run through the AUSRIVAS Darwin-Daly family-level model, which utilises the

following environmental predictor variables:

Latitude

Longitude

Average stream width

Riparian rainforest areas (km2) within 500 m of sample site

AUSRIVAS compares the expected (E) number of taxa to the actually observed (O) number of taxa at each

site. The AUSRIVAS system only considers taxa that were calculated to have a probability of 50 % or

greater of occurring at a test site. The OE50 score is therefore the ratio of the observed to expected number

of taxa with a probability of 50 % or greater of occurring. This OE50 score is the major output score used in

the NT to assess the health of the macroinvertebrate community at the test site (Lamche 2007).



3 Results and Discussion

3.1 Habitat descriptions

Details of stream habitats sampled and surrounding areas are provided in Table 3-1 and photographs of

each sample site are provided in Appendix A. The Elizabeth River tributaries sampled generally flow through

Eucalyptus woodland vegetation communities, with a relatively narrow riparian zone that is characterised by

species such as Lophostemon sp, Melaleuca sp. and Pandanus spiralis. Sampled habitats were generally

consistent between sites and due to the relatively flashy nature of high flows in this system, stream banks

were often scoured with bare substrates and had limited availability of what would be considered ideal

macroinvertebrate habitat (e.g. organic matter, trailing root materials, etc.). Macrophytes (Eriocaulon

setaceum) were abundant at sites NRSW02 and NRSW04, with the most notable difference in habitats

between sites being that the downstream site (NRSW06) had higher canopy cover and higher stream flows

than other sites, associated with the site’s location lower in the catchment.

Table 3-1. Stream habitat data

Site/Habitat Variable NRSW02 NRSW04 NRSW06

Stream Width (m) 3.8 2.3 4.3

Levee Bank Width (m) 7 7 12

Levee Bank Height (m) 2 1.5 2

Water Depth (m) 0.4 0.3 0.2

Stream Discharge (m3/s)* 0.010 0.010 0.090

Flow at sample location None None Obvious

Dominant Substrate (bank) Silt/clay Silt/clay Sand

Riparian Canopy Cover (%)* 80 10 90

Riparian Disturbance (weeds, fire, feral animals)

Medium density weeds

Medium density weeds

High density weeds

Other observations Iron floc visible Iron floc visible -

* Estimated visually, except discharge at Site NRSW06, taken from nearby DLRM gauge station (G8150018)

3.2 Water quality

Water quality at all sites was very good at the time of sampling, with field and laboratory data presented in

Table 3-2. The following general observations can be made:

Slightly acidic pH, likely to be attributable to the natural acidity of rainfall in the Darwin region

(Ayers et al. 1993; Noller et al. 1990).

EC was low, ranging from 16 – 95 µS/cm. This reflects very low concentrations of dissolved ions in

the water, indicating that there is minimal dissolution of minerals within the catchments (i.e. it is

essentially pure rainwater).

Turbidity and suspended solids were low, indicating minimal disturbance and erosion within the

catchments.

Concentrations of dissolved metals were below laboratory detection limits for all metals analysed,

except for aluminium and iron.



Concentrations of nutrients were generally below laboratory detection limits, with slightly elevated

organic nitrogen at site NRSW06.

Table 3-2. Water quality data

Parameter Unit Lab detection

limit NRSW02 NRSW04 NRSW06

Field

pH pH unit - 5.1 4.99 4.8

DO % - 85 99.4 88

EC uS/cm - 19 22.5 20.3

TDS g/L - 0.0123 0.0146 0.0133

Temperature °C - 23.5 23.5 22.3

Turbidity NTU - 2.4 1.8 4.1

Laboratory

Total Suspended Solids mg/L 5 <5 <5 <5

Hydroxide CaCO3 mg/L 1 <1 <1 <1

Carbonate CaCO3 mg/L 1 <1 <1 <1

Bicarbonate CaCO3 mg/L 1 4 10 12

Total Alkalinity CaCO3 mg/L 1 4 10 12

F mg/L 0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1

SO4 mg/L 1 <1 <1 <1

Cl mg/L 1 2 2 2

Total Hardness CaCO3 mg/L 1 <1 5 12

Ca mg/L 1 <1 2 3

Mg mg/L 1 <1 <1 1

Na mg/L 1 1 1 1

K mg/L 1 <1 <1 <1

Al (dissolved) mg/L 0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.11

As (dissolved) mg/L 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Cd (dissolved) mg/L 0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

Cr (dissolved) mg/L 0.001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

Cu (dissolved) mg/L 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Ni (dissolved) mg/L 0.001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

Pb (dissolved) mg/L 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Zn (dissolved) mg/L 0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Fe (dissolved) mg/L 0.05 <0.05 0.1 0.24

Ammonia mg/L 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.02

Nitrite mg/L 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.02

Nitrate mg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Nitrite+Nitrate mg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/L 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2

Total Nitrogen mg/L 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2

Total Phosphorus mg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Reactive Phosphorus mg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



3.3 Macroinvertebrates

3.3.1 Taxonomic composition

A total of 32 taxa were identified from the three survey sites, with the Class Insecta/Order Diptera having the

highest taxonomic richness and abundance (Table 3-3). The three survey sites had similar taxonomic

richness, with high abundances of:

Corixidae (Hemiptera - bugs) and Hydrophilidae (Coleoptera – beetles) at site NRSW02

Chironominae (Diptera – flies) at site NRSW04

Palaemonidae (Decopda – prawns) at site NRSW06.

Table 3-3. Macroinvertebrate results

Phylum Class OrderFamily/Sub-

family

Life

Stage

AUSRIVAS

CodeNRSW02 NRSW04 NRSW06

MOLLUSCA GASTROPODA Anclylidae KG069999 2 2 12

ANNELIDA OLIGOCHAETA Oligochaeta LO999999 26 18 24

Ostracoda 0 4 0

Cladocera 4 0 2

Copeopoda 6 6 0

Parathelphusidae 1 6 2

Atyidae OT019999 0 0 8

Palaemonidae OT029999 0 1 38

Baetidae N QE029999 6 14 8

Caenidae N QE089999 24 12 8

Coenagrionidae L QO029997 14 4 0

Anisoptera (imm) L QO999998 0 0 2

Hemicordulidae L QO999998 0 2 2

Libellulidae L QO999998 8 0 0

Corixidae A/N QH659999 48 16 8

Notonectidae A/N QH679999 8 2 0

Pleidae A/N QH689999 0 2 0

Veliidae A/N QH569999 2 0 0

Dytiscidae A QC099999 0 4 1

Elmidae L QC349999 0 0 2

Hydraenidae A QC139999 2 0 0

Hydrophilidae A QC119999 2 2 0

Hydrophilidae L QC119999 42 0 0

Hydrochidae A QCAO9999 0 8 2

Cecidomyiidae L 2 0 0

Chironomidae P 6 18 6

Tanypodinae L QDAE9999 44 48 30

Orthocladiinae L QDAF9999 0 14 14

Chironominae L QDAJ9999 60 132 38

Ceratopogonidae L QD099999 8 4 2

Culicidae L QD079999 6 0 0

Ecnomidae L QT089999 2 4 4

Leptoceridae L QT259999 2 0 2

325 323 215

22 22 21

Total abundance

Total richness

Decapoda

CRUSTACEA

ARTHROPODA

INSECTA

Ephemeroptera

Odonata

Hemiptera

Coleoptera

Diptera

Trichoptera



3.3.2 AUSRIVAS modelling

Outputs from the Darwin-Daly family-level AUSRIVAS model are presented in Table 3-4, which indicates that

site NRSW02 has lower than expected taxonomic richness, either as a result of water quality and/or habitat

quality. Both of the other sites were classified as similar to reference, noting that site NRSW04 was only just

classified as Band A (i.e. OE50 for Band A is 0.82-1.18).

As the water quality at sites NRSW02 and NRSW04 is considered very good and there is no current

development within their respective catchments, the relatively poor macroinvertebrate community health

could possibly be attributed to relatively poor habitat availability for macroinvertebrate colonisation and/or

hydrological conditions associated with their location high in the catchment (i.e. second order streams).

Sampled habitats were generally consistent between sites and due to the relatively flashy nature of high

flows in this system, stream banks were often scoured with bare substrates and had limited availability of

what would be considered ideal macroinvertebrate habitat (e.g. organic matter, trailing root materials, etc.).

Another potential explanation is that primary productivity is often reported to increase with increasing stream

order, moving down a catchment (e.g. Allan and Castillo 2007).

Table 3-4. Output from the Darwin-Daly family-level AUSRIVAS model

Site OE50 Band Description

NRSW02 0.79 B Significantly impaired

NRSW04 0.83 A Similar to reference

NRSW06 1.03 A Similar to reference



4 Acronyms and References

4.1 Acronyms

AUSRIVAS Australian Rivers Assessment Scheme

DLRM Department of Land Resource Management

DO Dissolved oxygen

EC Electrical conductivity

NTG Northern Territory Government

NTEPA Northern Territory Environmental Projection Authority

TDS Total dissolved solids

4.2 References

Allan, J.D. and Castillo, M.M. (2007), Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running Waters, Springer

Science & Business Media, 17 Aug 2007, 436 pp.

Ayers, G, Gillet, R, Selleck, P, Warne, J, Huysing, P and Forgan, B 1993, ‘A pilot study on rain-water

composition at Darwin Airport’, Australian Meteorological Magazine, vol. 42, pp. 143-150.

Noller, B, Currey, N, Ayers, G and Gillet, R 1990, ‘Chemical composition and acidity of rainfall in the Alligator

Rivers Region, Northern Territory, Australia’, Science of the Total Environment, vol. 91, pp. 23-48.

EcOz 2015, Surface Water Quality Monitoring Report: Noonamah Ridges Estate, prepared by EcOz

Environmental Consultants for Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd, June 2015, Darwin.

Lamche, G. 2007, The Darwin-Daly regional AUSRIVAS models – Northern Territory. User Manual, Report

06/2007D, Aquatic Health Unit, NT Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts,

Darwin.

NRETAS 2011, Darwin Harbour Report Cards 2011, Report No 17/2011D, NT Department of Department of

Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport, Darwin.

Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd Doc Title: Aquatic Ecology Report: Noonamah Ridge Estate

Appendix A – Site Photographs

NRSW02 upstream

NRSW02 downstream


NRSW04 upstream

NRSW04 downstream


NRSW06 upstream

NRSW06 downstream

Date post:	30-Apr-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times